...Enemies of the Canadian Government? (1 Viewer)

[Peter C.]

Who'd have thought that one little group - of ca. 250 members - could be so much of a threat to our National Ruling Party (the Conservatives)?

The gist of the story is that, last spring, a member of the board of my local nature club wrote a letter to our MP. This letter concerned the issue of new pesticides (neonicitinoids), expressing concern that there could be general environmental harm in the application of these (especially to pollinators), and urging more study.

Well, lo and behold, a letter arrives from the Canada Revenue Agency (a supposedly independent arm of the government) advising the club of their duties, as a body with charitable status, not to engage in political advocacy. "An audit is not ruled out" they wrote. Sounds like heavy-handled intimidation, to me. Before the horrific events in Ottawa last week, our tiny band of bird-watchers even made question period in the House.

Peter C.

 

[Jimmybirder]

I always got the impression that Harper was a slightly more polished version of George Bush. The party he leads bares many similarities to the Corporatocracy south of the border too .

 

[bkrownd]

I read the article but found no mention of which politicians or political parties were allegedly being directly supported or opposed by the group? (the only action a reasonable person could consider a "political activity")

 

[Pinewood]

I read the article but found no mention of which politicians or political parties were allegedly being directly supported or opposed by the group? (the only action a reasonable person could consider a "political activity")

Hello all,

That is close to the law in the States. A charity,which is very closely defined, may act as a pressure group on an issue. It may not engage in the either the support of or opposition to a political group or campaign, but it is free to advocate any policy.

Canada's PM is highly regarded by American conservatives, so Jimmy's observations about him have some accuracy.

I presume that that the letter was brought up in question time.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

 

[MJB]

Who'd have thought that one little group - of ca. 250 members - could be so much of a threat to our National Ruling Party (the Conservatives)?

The gist of the story is that, last spring, a member of the board of my local nature club wrote a letter to our MP. This letter concerned the issue of new pesticides (neonicitinoids), expressing concern that there could be general environmental harm in the application of these (especially to pollinators), and urging more study.

Well, lo and behold, a letter arrives from the Canada Revenue Agency (a supposedly independent arm of the government) advising the club of their duties, as a body with charitable status, not to engage in political advocacy. "An audit is not ruled out" they wrote. Sounds like heavy-handled intimidation, to me. Before the horrific events in Ottawa last week, our tiny band of bird-watchers even made question period in the House. Peter C.

Peter,
As well as there being numerous other examples in the Harper era of Canadian Government Agencies reacting with inappropriate severity to 'uppity' charities, colleges and universities (draft scientific papers being required to be submitted to officials before being published, environmental budgets being slashed without consideration of the science - the list goes on), it is telling that the Harper government is of a mind with the Australian Premier, Tony Abbott, whose anti-science credentials are well established).

Here's a report on Harper vs public perception: "Climate Poll: 62% Of Canadians Say Climate More Important Than Energy Prices" - http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/29/climate-poll-canada_n_6069210.html.

Even more interesting is this telling report about another aspect of the Canada Revenue Agency, sheer incompetence and blind bureaucracy: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/29/revenue-canada-letters-review_n_6066286.html.

It's scarcely surprising that conservation and environmental protection in Canada have been severely limited of late. Now, after the terrible events in Ottawa, these subjects are likely to slip well down the agenda almost to vanishing point.
MJB

 

[Peter C.]

Canada's PM is highly regarded by American conservatives, so Jimmy's observations about him have some accuracy.

That's my general impression, as well, and we're (largely) very distressed by it...

 

[Peter C.]

I read the article but found no mention of which politicians or political parties were allegedly being directly supported or opposed by the group? (the only action a reasonable person could consider a "political activity")

That's right ... and I've read the original letter that started it all, and they're aren't any there, either: [Go here, scroll way down...]

But in discussions I've had since, I've discovered that apparently I was under a very mistaken impression about what constitutes 'political activity' (specifically, as it is defined with respect to tax-exempt charitable organizations). It seems that any advocacy, pro or con, of any law (since laws are made in parliament), constitutes 'political activity.' To me, then, it seems that the CRA does have a leg to stand on - and that the law is an ass!

Peter

 

[JTweedie]

I've come across a similar situation in this country recently (although I can't for the life of me remember what it was about), but it seems that some governments are using these rules about charities and political advocacy as a way to stop criticism and to silence people.